Amendment 54 ruled unconstitutional

A voter-approved Constitutional amendment barring campaign contributions from unions and some state contractors was today ruled unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court.

The 4-1 decision affirms a lower court ruling and potentially wraps up a 16-month-long fight over the constitutionality of a law that opponents said curbed free speech rights and which threatened to chill donations to political candidates.

The majority called the provision overly broad in numerous instances, saying it was “so incomplete or riddled with omissions that it cannot be salvag[ed].”

Dissenting Justice Alex Martinez agreed with amendment supporters that the new rules could be preserved with a few key edits. Justices Allison Eid and Nathan Coates recused themselves.

The amendment, which passed with 51 percent of the vote in 2008, bars from any political giving holders of large no-bid state contracts, their families and members of boards of directors.

Among the problems the court found with the amendment:

– It wrongly defined labor unions as no-bid contractors, limiting their political contributions

– It barred a contract holder doing business with one government agency – a county government, for example – from giving to any candidate anywhere in Colorado.

– It disproportionately punished contractors and their families by prohibiting political contributions for two years following a no-bid government contracts

The state lawyers defending the amendment in court said the voter initiative faced an uphill battle from the start.

“When we took up this case we knew it was going to be a tough case to make. Clearly Amendment 54 had some Constitutional issues from the get go,” said Attorney General’s Office spokesman Mike Saccone. “The Supreme Court decision today was not unanticipated.”

Denver lawyer Bob Liechty, who filed an amicus curiea brief supporting the amendment, said he was disappointed with the ruling and his clients, who he declined to name, were still considering whether to pursue the case through a trial or with the U.S. Supreme Court should the state bow out.

The state’s top court also threw out provisions that would have required the state to compile a public database of no-bid government contract holders.

Jon Caldara, head of the free-market thinktank The Independence Institute, urged lawmakers to move forward with the database during the legislative session.

“The amendment was overly broad, but the idea of having a database to provide some transparency about sole source contractors, that’s not a bad thing,” Caldara said. “I want to see more competition for contracts.”

The plaintiffs – an amalgam of labor unions, civic leaders and political candidates – felt a sense of relief at today’s ruling, according to one of their lawyers, Doug Friednash.

“The decision came down in enough time that it won’t create any kind of cloud or ambiguity over the 2010 election,” Friednash said. “Boards and non-profits won’t have to choose between civic service and being able to make political contributions.”

jbowen43, this is actually a decision that should make democrats happy – not republicans. Amendment 54 was hotly contested by unions.

Spud

jbowen43, You are an idiot! If you don't know the make up of the appointees to the Supreme Court, don't show your ignorance. The major of the court has been appointed by former Democratic Governors.

doughubka

Another one of the Independence Institute's amendments aimed at declaring labor unions a one source contracter and deny them the right to address the government. Just another bit of politiics from the “bi-partisan” folks in Golden. This is another reason why the Colorado Intiiative process must be reformed.

ram72

That is GREAT news–finally!!!!

doughubka

Spud . I think Jbowen was being sarcastic. By the way, who is the Major of the Supreme Court ?

hakj

Well with the recent ruling of SCOTUS no matter what “excuse” they came up with, they really had no other choice.

hakj

with the recent ruling of SCOTUS, no matter what “excuse” they gave, they really didn't have much choice.

jbowen43

Only a fool would believe that the party affiliation of the elected official making the appointment determines the political philosophy of the justice. Ask any Governor or President.

VotersAreMorons

Quit wasting taxpayer money. Simply Vote NO on everything and nip it in the bud. Let Colorado legislators legislate, not special interests.

reality time

Judical activism at it's best. What a joke. The people spoke and the Colorado Liberal Judical system doesn't care. jbowen is clueless.

doughubka

Actually, if you followed the issue, you would know that 51 % of the people voted for this as it was advertised as a way to stop one source contractors from influencing politics. But the unsaid part ( by the people pushing this bill) was the real intent to deprive Unions from donating to political campaigns. The Colorado supreme Court should be commended for seeing through this and correctly ruling the Amendment as unconstitutional. As citizens of the State we should all be pleased that the court did its job properly

greeneyeshade

What would anyone expect from the hyper-partisan, liberal Democrat court?Have to protect their friends!

Michael

This is exactly why it should be more difficult to modify the state constitution. Hair-brained ideas like these, regardless of intentions, end up costing the taxpayers how much MORE money because of litigation. It's too bad that amendment to increase requirements for constitutional meddling failed last year… I hope it makes it someday, and soon, before the Doug Bruce's of the world screw us up even more

reality time

Actually, I did more than just following the issue doughubka.

donaldeljohnson

How can the state supreme court rule on the constitutionality of the state constitution, which it is supposed to interpret, not evaluate? It makes no sense.

WH3

It’s unconstitutional under the federal constitution not the state.

http://www.businessword.com/ Donald Johnson

You're right. The governors who appointed the justices expected integrity. Instead they got left wing partisanship. Clear the Bench.

Tim

Exactly right they are saying it its unconstitutional when it is in the constitution. May next they will say that women can't vote. The true problem comes from the representatives making ever bill an EMERGENCY bill that the taxpayers can't contest later on if they want. The EMERGENCY part should be eliminated by the Supreme Court.

JohnaldDonson

Squawk! Squawk! Righty wants a cracker!

http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/FX2NX3YS2ZR6NRLGM5WZJRZT2M Denis

Keep the bench. Lose the Induncepants Institute.

yaakovwatkins

The first amendment says “Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.” What part of “make no law” do you not understand?

tork

So unconstitutional to bar money from labor unions, but why all the whining that business has restrictions lifted by US Supreme Court? Playing court being leveled? And the result? More annoying political ads everywhere.

peterpi

The definition of “judicial activism” is “a decision you don't like”. Pure and simple.Amendment 54, while ostensibly a “good government” measure by the Independence Institute, was in reality nothing more than one more attempt to censor and muzzle labor unions. I hate to break it to the corporation-idolizing crowd, but labor unions and their members have rights also. Including free speech rights and including the right to donate to political causes.As others have pointed out, the recent US Supreme Court decision that “corporations are people too” left the Colorado Supreme Court no choice but to overturn the amendment.To the person who wondered why the Colorado Supreme Court can rule a state constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional, the federal constitution takes precedence.Next time, READ ballot issues before reflexively voting yes.Maybe the Independence Institute will now try the direct frontal assault approach, instead of the stealth approach, and persuade gullible Colorado dittoheads and Tea Partiers to outlaw labor unions, picketing, and wage and hour laws. Think of all the business we'd attract with 50 cent an hour wages! The Institute probably would also like to require all legislators to be appointed by corporate CEOs.The Independence Institute — fighting for the right of corporations to do whatever they damn well please, and allowing Jon Caldera to avoid a real job, since 1985

golfnut6

This legislation was probably a good idea. But think of all the money wasted since it passed to reach this point. Can't we get better crafted laws for our money?

Tim

The Colorado Supreme court does not rule on the Federal Constitution

doughubka

This Amendment was not created by the state legislature. It was maybe up by a Libertarian policy institute that thinks they can meddle in the states affairs without ever having to stand up and be elected on their merits.

Steven Peters

Huh? Supreme Court rules on constitutionality of a Constitutional Amendment? Are you kidding?

Commentator

How dare these arrogant judges overturn the will of the people.This is NOT a democracy.

doughubka

I thought most people would understand that the state constitution must also adher to the principles in the US Constitution. That is what the State Supreme Court is doing here. The State court is saying that this Amendment would not be valid under the US Constitution, which is the one set of laws all of the states have agreed to live by. That is why we are called the “United” States.The people that put this on the ballot have the right to appeal the courts decision to the US Supreme Court, if they think the State court is wrong. That is not likely to happen, it is just easier to holler about judicial activism and liberal justices, when you don't get you way .

Tim is clueless

Tim: yes, the Colorado Supreme Court, like every other Supreme Court, is authorized to, and does, issue rulings under the federal constitution, when a state alw or state constitutional provision violates the federal constitution. You clearly didn't even read today's decision, making clear you're a buffoon who doesn't bother reading things he criticizes. Fool.

Steven Peters is a doofus

Steven: yes, state and federal courts alike can, and do, strike down any state statutes or state constitutional provisions that violate the federal constitution. Try reading the decision before you ignorantly rant about it!

Commentator is a dolt

“Commentator”: you think the “will of the people” lets “the people” enact a law that violates the First Amendment? What if “the people” vote that you should wear a muzzle — would that be ok too?

http://www.milehighdelphi.blogspot.com/ hellboy

So if it is part of the constitution, the court can rule it unconstitutional? So if the court doesn't like any new amendments that we pass then they can just rule them unconstitutional also? Does anyone have a list of the anti-54 groups so I know who NOT to do business with…at least until the State Supreme Court rules that I have to do business with them (all those no bid contracts for those emergency construction projects, so I guess I'm already screwed). Whatever, I'm voting to kick those bastards out this fall anyway. Hope they enjoy the private sector…but I guess they could always rule that the retention votes are unconstitutional…

johnhkennedy

The failure to support fairness for Union Members will cost All Democratic Candidates, as shown by lame duck Gov. Ritter deciding to give up his bid for reelection, has proved.Thousands of Union members would have ignored his bid for reelection. Dropping his bid was “saving face”, nothing else.

johnhkennedy

The failure to support fairness for Union Members will cost All Democratic Candidates, as shown by lame duck Gov. Ritter deciding to give up his bid for reelection, has proved.Thousands of Union members would have ignored his bid for reelection. Dropping his bid was “saving face”, nothing else.

Lynn Bartels thinks politics is like sports but without the big salaries and protective cups. The Washington Post's "The Fix" blog has named her one of Colorado's best political reporters and tweeters.

Joey Bunch has been a reporter for 28 years, including the last 12 at The Denver Post. For various newspapers he has covered the environment, water issues, politics, civil rights, sports and the casino industry.